There’s outrage over the way that a parliamentary debate on anti-bird netting ended

MPs debated the impact and legality of anti-bird netting on 13 May. Anti-netting campaigners welcomed the debate, which came after a petition gained more than 355,000 signatures. But the way it ended left campaigners absolutely fuming.

The issue

Labour MP Mike Hill led the cross-party debate on netting. Developers use the practice to prevent birds from nesting in their chosen location such as trees, hedgerows, rafters and cliffs. Interfering with already-nesting birds is illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. So developers get around this law by putting up nets that stop birds from being able to nest in the first place. But conservationists and other wildlife advocates have condemned netting for seriously disrupting birds’ natural breeding patterns. Furthermore, as Hill said in his introduction to the debate:

the issue goes well beyond the detrimental effect of netting on nesting birds; netting affects the wellbeing of other wildlife, as well as having environmental consequences.

Start your day with The Canary News Digest

Fresh and fearless; get excellent independent journalism from The Canary, delivered straight to your inbox every morning.

Email Address

First name

Last name

Mobile number (optional)

Website

The debate took place after a petition on the government’s website reached more than 355,000 signatures. The debate noted this display of public concern. Conservative MP Cheryl Gillan, for example, said that more than 1,000 of the signatures came from her constituency alone and this reflected a “great concern” for the environment. And Hill described the petition as having “raised plenty of interest… and strong feelings”.

Agreement across the floor

MPs across political lines broadly agreed with the sentiment of the petition. Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb highlighted the use of netting on cliffs in Bacton, north Norfolk, and emphasised the need for “close collaboration” between councils and groups such as the RSPB to “absolutely properly… protect birds”. Meanwhile, SNP MP John McNally said that his “feeling is that this practice is in no way acceptable”. And Luke Pollard, a Labour Co-operative MP, said:

this cruel practice needs to be stopped and… measures need to be taken to discourage not only developers but… the public sector and public organisations from using this practice.

Labour’s Diana Johnson said MPs must “look seriously at ending the practice of netting, but we must also think beyond that” due to its symbolic place in wider concerns about destruction of the natural environment. And even Conservative MP Hugo Wire said a “ban [on] netting during the breeding season” would be worth considering despite being against further-reaching legislation.

Gillan also raised an important secondary issue: HS2. The high-speed rail link has been criticised for its harmful impact on the environment. Its construction has also made use of netting. HS2 said netting used during its construction is monitored daily. But Gillan said she wasn’t “entirely convinced that those nets will be monitored on a daily basis”. And she asked why HS2 couldn’t at the very least complete its tree and hedgerow removal “outside the nesting season”.

Turning point

Many people and groups responded positively to the debate, citing MPs’ understanding of issues raised by anti-netting campaigners:

Heather Wheeler, housing minister

Despite cross-party agreement during the debate on the need to change laws on the use of netting, there was ultimately no movement by the government. Housing minister Heather Wheeler spoke at the debate on behalf of the government. And she appeared to overlook the urgency of the issue. Whilst acknowledging the points raised by MPs during the debate, Wheeler said any legal changes couldn’t happen until the upcoming Environment Bill. Gillan asked when the government would publish the bill. Wheeler said:

In due course.

And it was Wheeler’s pushing back of changes to an indeterminate future point that angered people:

Everyone in the room agreed netting is bad & it all seemed 2B going in the right direction until the tory minister spoke-obviously couldn't care less,the building companies R more important & when asked when law wld B brought in she replied in due course which prob means never

Very convenient. Mollify 1/3rd Million people who signed the Petition 2 address #injustice Lip service! Then fail to Act. Words are worthless. Petitions serve a purpose. Hold to account. If seen 2 be ineffective People will turn to other methods. Not good! 😱

Wildlife always coming second

While this debate on netting has ended, public interest in the subject is far from over. Netting has been used for increasingly bizarre situations, including recent photos showing an entire Cumbrian farmhouse apparently covered in it. As Hill noted in his introduction, netting harms more than just birds. And, because it’s a very visible practice, it’s become a figurehead subject for the way that humans are treating the natural world. As Stewart Abbott, who has helped pushed awareness and action on netting, said, the real issue is “wildlife always coming 2nd”.

On 1 May, the government agreed a non-binding motion to declare a climate emergency. Yet when it comes down to actually acting on this declaration, the government appears deaf to the meaning of “emergency”. Both the World Wildlife Fund and UN have warned about biodiversity across the globe being destroyed by human activity. And this includes the UK, where one in 10 wild animal species faces extinction.

Netting could have been an easy ‘win’ for the government whilst benefitting dozens of species across the UK. Its heel-dragging on the issue, much like netting itself, is symbolic of the government’s two-faced attitude towards the environment.

Since you're here ...

We know you don't need a lecture. You wouldn't be here if you didn't care.
Now, more than ever, we need your help to challenge the rightwing press and hold power to account. Please help us survive and thrive.

This site

This website uses cookies

We, and our partners, set cookies and collect information from your browser to provide you with website content, deliver relevant advertising and understand web audiences. See our privacy policy to learn more about how we manage your data and your rights. See our cookie consent policy to understand how we use cookies and tracking technology. To agree to our use of cookies, click "Accept".